I don't think any of the choices you listed are immoral. I think Dawkins used a poor choice of word to get his point across which, given how keen everyone is to hate Richard Dawkins, was bound to result in yet another Twitter controversy. The emotive word of "immoral" left him open to accusations of personal judgement against parents of down syndrome children, which his later post showed wasn't his intention. The poor choice of wording was his oversight. However once he clarified further in an appropriately longer post, the point he was making was a sound one which I agree with. In the same way AgentW doesn't understand why I would rather be direct about sensitive issues, I don't understand why someone would choose to have a child with down syndrome if they have the option to abort. I think it is an illogical choice to make, a choice worth questioning even (in the spirit of enlightenment, NOT personal judgement), but it is also down to individual preference which is absolutely fine. I wouldn't personally feel attached to an unfeeling, unthinking collection of cells, but if you and your wife do feel attached and think of it as a little person then you can of course choose to ignore everything I say. Do what you think is good and right for your family. The context where he was asked an opinion by someone he knows and respects, and he answered directly and honestly in a format that doesn't allow for nuance. The media was very keen to print the tweet all over the front pages to make out he was trying to impose a twisted Social-Darwinism-esque ideology onto all disabled people. They do this because it results in more clicks which generate more money. Dawkins was then accused of being a fame-whore for what was a journalist's decision to print the tweet everywhere. The tweet was treated as if it represented his entire viewpoint, even after he had clarified his intention in a more meaningful, humane post. The worst thing he can be accused of is using a poor choice of words. Twitter is very useful for opportunistic journalists because it easily allows for spin, and this is why at the start of the thread I questioned why Dawkins continues to use it. I now take the standpoint that Dawkins shouldn't shut himself up just because other people are keen to misrepresent his views. The issue is with irresponsible journalism, and the issue should never be with the act of expressing an opinion about a sensitive topic.